Factcheck.org: Correction #2

On Sept. 4, 2009 I published a blog entitled FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES. In that report, I pointed out that Factcheck.org – while admitting my report accurately corrected their original statutory analysis as to President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship – erroneously stated I was a “former attorney”:

Unfortunately, they made another factual error above; I am not a former lawyer. I am currently a lawyer with an active, pristine law license in the state of New Jersey. I expect Factcheck.org to correct the defamatory statement.

While I appreciate their correction, I fail to understand why they made this mistake to begin with. They could have checked their facts with the State of New Jersey, but they didn’t. This is twice now that Factcheck.org has been forced by this blog to admit and correct errors.

This means we must force Factcheck.org to justify everything written in their original report, which stated:

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on…

– There is nothing in the public record to indicate President Obama’s personal opinion as to whether he still holds Kenyan citizenship.

– There is nothing in the public record to support Factcheck.org’s analysis that President Obama fails to qualify as a Kenyan citizen under the entire Kenyan Constitution and applicable statutes.

Since Factcheck.org has admitted to having been corrected twice by this blog, I would now ask Factcheck.org to substantiate its alleged factchecking on these issues by informing the public as to any “facts” which support its original conclusions.

Has Factcheck.org been privy to a direct interview with Barack Obama on these issues and if so when will the transcript be printed?

As far as I am aware, President Obama has never endorsed the conclusion made by Factcheck.org – that he lost his Kenyan citizenship. And I see no reason to implicate the President in the faulty statutory and factual analysis Factcheck.org has recently admitted to.

So, we need to hear directly from the President: Are you now a current citizen or national of Kenya or any other country? Are you now a citizen or national of any supranational body?

President Obama’s answers need to be a matter of public record. We cannot depend on bloggers to answer for the President any longer.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on September 11, 2009 at 5:08 PM and is filed under Uncategorized . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

49 Responses to “Factcheck.org: Correction #2”

I see Obama’s tall wall beginning to crumble. Watch for a desperate move soon. You’re correct, Leo, but Obama will never answer these questions. Not ever. He is not eligible and he knows any admission will just contribute to the unraveling.

I know you don’t expect a response either. Incredible to watch though.

Let’s not forget, to mention, the forged COLB, as the basis, of any discussion, about Obama, being eligible, to be President. Factcheck’s claim, that the “COLB” is a real document, is laughable, and their only piece of evidence, to support their claim, that Obama was born in Hawaii, as if that makes any difference. The “COLB”, is central, to Obama’s claim of legitimacy, and is the only piece of evidence, they have presented.

Didn’t factcheck also claim Obama was born owing allegiance to the British, via the BNA of 1948?

Example: Hitler or old King George, if living or any foreigner can impregnate a US citizen. As long as she gives birth to that child on American soil while she is a US citizen that child can then become president of the United States because the child is a Natural Born Citizen.

That people is what all our Media, Congress people and courts are saying.

Telling us this is what our founding fathers were trying to say when they put in that term Natural-Born requirment to be President of the United States in our Constitution.

That is how Obama is saying he became a Natural Born Citizen.

Doesn’t make sense to this country boy how about all you city slickers?

Let’s ask them for proof of everything they said, and make a list; when and if they admit their sources, they’ll be forced to fire their researchers…

A pointed question would be; did FactCheck report anything as a fact, on the basis of any communications with Obama or his campaign; when, how, what kinds of communications, with whom; and was anything confirmed by other sources…

Just who at FactCheck wrote the articles or communicated with Obama and company….

I bet you play a mean game of chess, too! Excellent. If FactCheck.org does not comply with your requests of HOW they got their “facts” about Obama, will litigation happen?

[Ed. Interesting question. Suppose it turns out that Obama has been a Kenyan citizen all along… I wonder if somebody who voted for Obama based upon factcheck’s analysis could sue them for defrauding them of their vote? There’s probably some case somehwere that dealt with an issue like this – I don’t know. I’m just thinking off the top of my head. Interesting idea.]

Exactly Leo. Unfortunately the MSM (who can ask questions of the president) won’t. This administration has set new standards when it comes to stonewalling and the press wets themselves when BHO walks into the room. This is the direct result of monopoly media. The president should fear the press not the other way around.

– There is nothing in the public record to indicate President Obama’s personal opinion as to whether he still holds Kenyan citizenship.

– There is nothing in the public record to support Factcheck.org’s analysis that President Obama fails to qualify as a Kenyan citizen under the entire Kenyan Constitution and applicable statutes.

Given what Factcheck has claimed and otherwise implied, where are their facts that substantiate? Absent substantiation, has Factcheck fabricated or perhaps committed a fraud to protect a presidential candidate from adverse scrutiny?

Given the way Factcheck sells itself to the public in the commons to both enhance its celebrity and raise money for its operations, I think they have a duty to demonstrate the facts and substantiate their claims, or otherwise admit wrongful behavior and correct the record.

[Ed. Exactly my point. They need to fess up on how they came to these conclusions.]

If BO can’t lose his USA citizen because he was born a US Citizen, by the same token He CAN NOT lose his Birtish Citizenship because he was born a British.
We have a “president” that is Governed by the British Monarchy which is exactly what the Founding Fathers were prohibiting with the NBC clause.

BO SHOW or GO.
Jumbalaya, JumboLair or ObamaLair?

Joe Wilson speaks for me.

[Ed. One can lose either citizenship. If you are a US citizen, nothing can change the circumstance of your birth. But you can certainly lose or renounce your citizenship.]

“Initially, we said that Obama’s citizenship expired in 1982, on Obama’s 21st birthday. In fact, however, the Kenyan Constitution provides a two-year window during which one can decide which citizenship to keep. So, President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1984, not 1982, as we had initially reported.

We regret the error. But we do note that the two-year change doesn’t really make any difference. As we’ve said before, the only constitutional requirements for being elected president are that one be at least 35 years old, reside in the U.S. for 14 consecutive years prior to election and be a natural-born citizen. Obama was born in Hawaii. And he lost his Kenyan citizenship around the same time Don Johnson created a minor crisis in the sock and the razor blade manufacturing industries.”

Since Factcheck.org claims to provide irrefutible, documented, factual, non-partisan information, can you please answer the following questions for me:-

1. Do you have publicly available, documented proof that Obama allowed his Kenyan citizenship to expire? Do you have publicly available, documented proof that Obama never traveled to Kenya, between 1982 and 1984, to confirm and retain his Kenyan citizenship? IF so, please publish this as supporting reference documentation for your assertion.

2. There are many, many theories, arguments, discussions and speculation about the interpretation and meaning of the ‘natural citizen’ born clause as it appears in the Constitution. Your staff writer asserts/claims/assumes that Obama is a natural born citizen, because his Kenyan citizenship expired. Can you please provide publicly documented proof of the definition, per the US Constitution, what the meaning of ‘ natural born citizen’ is, and how Obama qualifies for this citizenship status? In other words, what is a natural born citizen and how does Obama qualify for this citizenship status? Please provide the factual reference material, and not personal interpretation.

Your sincerely
name redacted
A permanent resident and not a natural born citizen

“1) The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one.

2) One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.

3) The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of President is the version that was filed with every state in the country, and the one used by the DNC to elect Barack Obama President.”

THE ELIGIBILITY QUESTION: A SHORT HISTORY
(Sept. 12, 2009) — Last April, the online news site, World Net Daily, began a billboard campaign, soliciting funds for ads that would pose the question, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” Billboards have been secured in prominent locations around the country. ….more

Leo,
to further muck up the works of FactCheck.org, I just submitted this question to them:

[You (FactCheck.org) state:

We’ve given the denialists a lot of grief for the times they’ve been wrong. But we’d be remiss not to note when they get something right. Our Aug. 29, 2008, Ask FactCheck item asking whether Obama has Kenyan citizenship correctly stated that Obama did have dual citizenship as a child but that it expired as an adult. But Leo Donofrio, a lawyer, argues that we got the year wrong. He’s right about that, and we have corrected the item.

Initially, we said that Obama’s citizenship expired in 1982, on Obama’s 21st birthday. In fact, however, the Kenyan Constitution provides a two-year window during which one can decide which citizenship to keep. So, President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1984, not 1982, as we had initially reported.

We regret the error. But we do note that the two-year change doesn’t really make any difference. As we’ve said before, the only constitutional requirements for being elected president are that one be at least 35 years old, reside in the U.S. for 14 consecutive years prior to election and Must be a natural-born citizen. Obama was born in Hawaii. And he lost his Kenyan citizenship around the same time Don Johnson created a minor crisis in the sock and the razor blade manufacturing industries.

My question is: IF OBAMA IS INDEED A TRULY NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, HOW CAN HE HAVE/ or HAD BEFORE; ANY OTHER ALLEGIANCES OR NATIONALITY ISSUES AND either had to deal with those issues or NOT deal with them, and still be considered A NATUARL BORN CITIZEN? According to my understanding of the wording “Natural Born Citizen” means born of TWO PARENT(S) on AMERICAN SOIL OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY OTHER COUNTRY THAN AMERICA at the time of Birth of said person. You clearly state for the record that Obama’s father was a KENYAN/BRITISH CITIZEN at the time of Obama JR’s birth and I personally have seen many articles that state Obama Sr never had any intention of becoming an American Citizen, so how can you step up and state that Obama Jr is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN? He clearly did/does NOT have BOTH PARENTS as either native, natural born or naturalized Citizens, ONLY ONE and that is dubious at best because his Mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was only 18 years and some months old at the time of his birth and at that particular time on our Citizenship law issues, she would have had to be 19 years old to confer EVEN AMERICAN CIIZENSHIP on Obama Jr, not to even mention Natural Born Citizenship on his sweet little head. ]

What do ya wanna bet, THERE WILL BE NO ANSWER TO MY QUESTION

[Ed. Factcheck? – there aint no fact checking goin on as to this issue. Whether Obama is a natural born citizen is not a factual issue, it’s a legal question which – based on the fact reported by Factcheck.org – that Obama was Britsh at birth – can only be answered in court not by bloggers.]

“All of these Annenberg Political Fact Check (APFC) articles are misleading and never directly address the ‘natural-born citizen’ requirement as to any type of definition, case history, historical references, etc. and tend to skate around the ‘natural-born citizen’ issue. All of these articles, except one (now two), were written prior to the election when America needed to know. Here is a quick analysis.”

Now even this article skates around the ‘natural-born citizen’ requirement and does not directly address the issue, even though this article mentions the phrase ‘natural-born citizen’.

From this APFC article, “Obama and Kenya. Again.”
“As we’ve said before, the only constitutional requirements for being elected president are that one be at least 35 years old, reside in the U.S. for 14 consecutive years prior to election and be a natural-born citizen. Obama was born in Hawaii.”

Now APFC relies on another blogger to define Mr. Obama’s eligibility. APFC, you people must believe this blog, ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is rhetoric, so why wouldn’t this other blog which “We agree with” also be rhetoric and then look at your own blog and decide if your blog isn’t ‘mass-media rhetoric’!!!

From this APFC article, “Obama and Kenya. Again.”
“If you really want to get into the weeds with his argument (or, really, with any other birth certificate related question), we suggest that you head over to Obama Conspiracy Theories, where a blogger who uses the pseudonym “Dr. Conspiracy” has taken on the Herculean (or is that Sisyphean?) task of debunking birth certificate related conspiracies. We agree with his take on Donofrio’s argument.”

APFC, you people have not received your ‘fact check’ information and documentation directly from legal sources, but have have relied on, for example, “The “secrecy” ended when Tommy Vietor at the Obama campaign sent a message to us and other reporters saying,…”, to write your articles.

This eligibility issue is not about the question of ongoing rhetoric or political prejudice, but… this is a question of law.

Mr. Donofrio is right, “President Obama’s answers need to be a matter of public record. We cannot depend on bloggers to answer for the President any longer.”

And I say to the people at APFC. Challenge yourselves.
The answers do need to be a matter of public record. It is time for Annenberg Political FactCheck to step up and use legal sources as necessary but not limited to, case history, historical references, law references, the sources of our national judiciary, the President, himself, to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility.

You are right. Furthermore, not much attention is paid to the following part of same record you quoted:

“The Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. Musyoka): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. I am just about to conclude. The point I am making is very important.……At the beginning of this year, Senator Barrack Obama called me at midnight and told me: “Mr. Vice President, could you make sure you sort out this problem?” I want to assure him that the problem has since been sorted out. (Several hon. Members stood up.)”

Consequently, a gag-order was placed on any communications related to the alleged Kenyan birth by the relatives, or the hospital named by the Kenyan grandmother, and an American reporter who was investigating the hospital was kicked out of Kenya.

If this is not indirect evidence of a cover-up, what is? Implicating the chief himself. Somehow, the Birthers have not emphasized this point. The Duelers would not be expected to do so, nevertheless it is a fascinating bit of information. Why make midnight phone calls and expell reporters, if transparency is the dictum we live by?

on any external links from your site, those links will open as a new window, where when visitors close the external site window, they will still be viewing your website in their original browser window. That does not require visitors to hit the back button to return to your site, so it keeps your site more visible. For any links on your site, don’t use the target=”_blank” Only use for it external site links.

letters were written and sent to each and every member of the house asking the questions: Who vetted Mr. Obama? What documents were reviewed to ascertain his eligibility? the responses were laughable. Many directed us to factcheck.org and the alleged genuine bc that was posted online. Feinstein responded that BO was eligible under the 14th amendment, so did Mel Martinez. Ron Paul told us he didn’t believe that BO was eligible, but he said he would not get involved because”they would laugh at me.” When asked who they was, he said “members of the house.” Both the repubs, & dems know that BO is not eligible but they will remain silent because it suits their purpose.

The American people have to take a firm stand and vote them ALL out of office. But I believe it is a too little too late, when the president gives a speech and greets his “progressive friends.” You might want to look up the meaning of “progressive party,” since there is a very strong congressional progressive caucus.

Although I personally appreciate you legal analysis, opinions and historic research on such matters, I am in need of legal enlightenment, of which I cannot find the absolute answer through my personal research.

My question pertains to Dr. Orly’s case, whereby there may be discovery granted by the Federal Judge. If discovery in a case is granted, does the attorney need to solely rely upon the defendant to produce discovery documents? Or in the alternative, can the Attorney seek alternative or self reliance to demand documents themselves? In simplicity, can the attorney, once granted discovery, simply demand documents without having to ask the defendants to produce it for them? I have personally reviewed discovery through many legal sites and needless to say, it is not specific but yields many alternative methods to gather discovery documents.

[Ed. The discovery only pertains to requests made by plaintiff to defendant. Unless the court specifically orders an outside body – ie Hawaii DoH – to hand over documents than the plaintiff cannot get the documents from them.]

“We’ve given the denialists a lot of grief for the times they’ve been wrong. But we’d be remiss not to note when they get something right. Our Aug. 29, 2008, Ask FactCheck item asking whether Obama has Kenyan citizenship correctly stated that Obama did have dual citizenship as a child but that it expired as an adult.”

Factcheck selectively ignores the facts they printed prior that President Obama was born under the jurisdiction of the British Government. He was, jurisdictionally, singularly a British Citizen who also enjoyed the opportunity of American citizenship through his mother, as his father, a British citizen, was never a permanent resident of the United States.

As Obama has admitted and Factcheck has prior published he was born under the jurisdiction of the British Government at birth, does not Factcheck have duty to disclose the day on which President Obama ceased to be a British Citizen and on what day he ceased to be a subject of the British Crown?

If our current President is not today a British Citizen or a subject owing allegiance to the British Crown, there was indeed a day when this ceased to be so. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot be born under the jurisdiction of the British Government as a subject of the British Crown and cease to be either without a formal date of renouncement.

What day, then? What is the day? Why snark when only facts can answer? Why does Factcheck continue to deny these facts?

This is a simple question. What was the day of renouncement of President Obama’s birth citizenship?

Just in case you have not been apprised of this I would like to inform you that the State of Hawaii requires that Presidential candidates meet the provisions of the United States Constitution.

I am sure that is why there are two different forms….

HRS 11-113 states in part:

§11-113 Presidential ballots.

(a) In presidential elections, the names of the candidates for president and vice president shall be used on the ballot in lieu of the names of the presidential electors, and the votes cast for president and vice president of each political party shall be counted for the presidential electors and alternates nominated by each political party.

(b) A “national party” as used in this section shall mean a party established and admitted to the ballot in at least one state other than Hawaii or one which is determined by the chief election officer to be making a bona fide effort to become a national party. If there is no national party or the national and state parties or factions in either the national or state party do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the chief election officer may determine which candidates’ names shall be placed on the ballot or may leave the candidates’ names off the ballot completely.

(c) All candidates for President and Vice President of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:

(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been
qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election
ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn
application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m.
on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall
include:

(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;

(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve
under the provisions of the United States Constitution;

(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen
candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the
time, place, and manner of the selection.

“(T)he only constitutional requirements for being elected president are that one be at least 35 years old, reside in the U.S. for 14 consecutive years prior to election and be a natural-born citizen. Obama was born in Hawaii. And he lost his Kenyan citizenship around the same time Don Johnson created a minor crisis in the sock and the razor blade manufacturing industries.

Ah, so they must be arguing that there is some form of citizenship called “Born with derivative citizenship but with the possibility of upgrading to natural-born status with a choice that the individual could choose to make at some future date”.

It’s hard to believe that these FactCheck people take a leak without first getting approval from Obama’s lawyers, so you gotta wonder if it’s an argument Obama will use in his defense strategy.

“Suppose it turns out that Obama has been a Kenyan citizen all along… I wonder if somebody who voted for Obama based upon factcheck’s analysis could sue them for defrauding them of their vote?” [Ed. please do NOT use bold print. It is reserved for my comments.]

And also keep in mind that members of Congress took Annenberg Political Fact Check at their word, and treated there statement almost as if it was testimony from an expert witness. Annenberg Political Fact Check is based at the University of Pennsylvania, and they are the “experts” referred to in the following actual letter I received from one of my Senators:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Hawaii became a territory of the United States in 1898 and was officially admitted as a State in 1959.

It is my understanding that President-Elect Obama has released an official copy of his birth certificate. Since he was born in 1961 in Hawaii, he is eligible under the Constitution to run for and hold the office of President of the United States. In addition, President-Elect Obama’s birth records have been certified and validated by the Hawaii Department of Health as well as by experts from the University of Pennsylvania. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case and agreed with the lower courts’ rulings that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the legal challenges questioning President-Elect Obama’s citizenship.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to let me know or visit my website at …

Again, the so-called “experts from the University of Pennsylvania” were Annenberg Political Fact Check.

My Senator trusted Annenberg Political Fact Check.

Vice President Cheney, acting in his role of President of the Senate, did not follow the specific instructions of the US Code of Federal Regulations Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15:

Cheney did not call for objections. Doesn’t the fact that the law was not followed invalidate any confirmation of the Electoral College vote?

Leo, if at least 1 Senator and 1 Representative were to file written objections now, what do you think should happen, from a legal standpoint?
[Ed. Nothing in the Constitution or the federal statutes gives any guidance. It’s my opinion that Congress has exercised their review authority by enacting the quo warranto statute. They may choose to exercise it again in some way. But I doubt it.]

realize you’ve wrtitten about Quo Warranto before, but what about the fact that the law was not followed when the Electoral College votes were counted?

An objection wouldn’t have to claim that Obama is not eligible, rather only that his eligibility has not been proven. 1) No original birth certificate has ever been sent under seal from the State of Hawaii to members of Congress, and 2) No court ruling has established whether someone born on U.S. soil to 1 or more non-citizen parents can be considered a “natural born citizen”.

Amen. Where’s the documentation on this brazen statement. Fact Check needs to own up, or change it’s name mission statement. How’s this – ‘FactCheck – But Somtimes We Make Stuff Up’. Their careless mistakes lead me to doubt anything they have ever written.

Contrairimairi Writes to Fox About Cancellation of Hannity Show Exposing OCheeseball

Contrairimairi sent me a copy of an e-mail she had sent to Fox concerning cancellation of a show that was to expose President OCheeseball. I reproduce it in its virtuous entirety. Mairi is from Chicago and has been skeptical of OCheeseball since his senatorial days. I must say that I dropped Fox along with most other news outlets when they failed to tell the truth about the bailouts and the economic wealth transfers to Wall Street last year. Also, the ongoing deception about the Federal Reserve Bank and the large subsidies paid annually to the money center banks and Wall Street have not been covered. Hence, there is no important media in the United States, including Fox.

>Dear FOX,

I am an American. I am a simple person, who expects to receive news that is appropriate, truthful, and relevant. I expect that those who deliver that news will do so with all honesty and integrity.

It seems that FOX is a dying breed, and one of the last venues where Americans can even HOPE to be informed as mentioned. Unfortunately for all Americans, however, FOX is also caving in to “adjusting” the news for the masses, and only delivering news that falls into a category “allowed”, apparently, by “the powers that be”.

Recently, Sean Hannity promised to deliver a hard hitting program on Barack. We soon found out it was canceled just hours before it’s air time. Some of us, more fortunate than others, have, through the miracle of the Internet, been able to view that program. I have to admit, I was a bit dismayed that it was mostly just a rehash of things already well-known. The important thing, however, is that it was “pulled”. WHY?

Fox claims to be the “fair and balanced” alternative to the MSM, but in all actuality, it appears FOX is also caving in to a “higher authority” somewhere, who is calling all the shots on ALL of the media.

We know that “marching orders” and threats were imposed on EVERY media outlet in this Country regarding the birth certificate (B/C) issue. Personally, I could see FOX skirting the B/C issue, and STILL delivering an honest case for just “eligibility” based on Papa O being a British Subject. Barack himself admitted this, why can’t FOX just reiterate Barack’s own claim? Forget the B/C, all it proves is whether or not Barack was a citizen, EVER. We just don’t need it to prove he is ineligible by his own words!

Why not produce an honest segment exposing Barack’s website (still held by many in screen captures!) and the truth as admitted by the usurper himself?

I am sick of O’Reilly’s disingenuous ridicule of Americans who KNOW the single, most important threat to this Country at this time, IS Barack! He sits in OUR White House, a usurper, untouched by the media due to threats. The answer is so simple. Expose him with his own words, and his own admissions on his own Internet website. It’s not a difficult maneuver. You don’t need to make a call for any B/C. It is NOT necessary.

Why not bring Mario Apuzzo to appear on FOX as one who has ostensibly shown that Barack very likely is STILL a dual citizen with allegiances to BOTH the U.S. ( that is, IF he was born here!) and Great Britain. I understand that Orly Taitz is not the most rational interview as she becomes easily frazzled. Americans LOVE her for her tenacity, interview Mario Apuzzo instead.

Many FOX viewers are right now engaged in a battle with FOX advertisers, who are being used by fringe left-wingers, and supporters of a self-professed communist, anarchist, and felon, Van Johnson (green czar). I believe we will win this battle for these advertisers who are being manipulated in an attack against Glenn Beck. We do, however, expect a ROI for our efforts. FOX must come clean on the eligibility issue. There is no other issue more vital to America’s continued existence as a “Representative Republic”. “Pick the target, (Barack) freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Make this his own war on himself! The American public continue to look to you for honesty and integrity, but we are growing weary in our wait.

Never again claim to be “fair and balanced” or “lookin’ out for the folks”, if you do not fulfill those claims. As well you know from your own reporting on the groundswell now underway in this great Nation, you can either come with us, or be left behind, but one way or another, the truth will out, and Barack will be on the outside looking in. Americans will NEVER give up until our White House is returned to us!
Looking forward to seeing you Sept. 12th. Hope by then, you will have received our message loud and clear, and will FINALLY give us what we want…….OUR WHITE HOUSE!

GOD’s Speed in your efforts to catch up with the rest of us,
Contrairi Mairi
Illinois

And the claim that the media vetted Obama, thru a recent exchange with Chris Matthews & G.Gordon Liddy by presenting a document, is like saying that Mary Mapes presenting a document of Bush not having served serves as credential for not investigating further.

I don’t need to trust, I just need to verify – that can be achieved by the unsealing of all records by which to make comparisons. Of course, provided they haven’t all been tampered with by this point.

Please clarify the point you made above in response to: itooktheredpill Says:
September 12, 2009 at 11:24 pm Ed.: “It’s my opinion that Congress has exercised their review authority by enacting the quo warranto statute. “

It seems that the Quo Warranto is a federal statute. But what does it have to do with the procedure at the Elector’s confirmation by the joint session of Congress that clearly obligated Cheney to ask the critical question. Is this a Quo Warranto issue?

itooktheredpill is 100% right on: “An objection wouldn’t have to claim that Obama is not eligible, rather only that his eligibility has not been proven. “ It is unexplainable why Cheney did not utter those words. The GOP would have only gained at that point and risking nothing because McCain was already a powerless history.

I think some attorney should bring a suit directly to Cheney for breaking the rule. It would expose the GOP leadership of their strange behavior, and make the Conservative issues more clearly defined, even if the judge will hide behind the Standing Doctrine or some other technicality.

[Ed. Im speaking directly to the object of removing the ineligible person form office once they’ve been sworn in. That appears to me to be in the sole power of Congress and therefore in enacting the QW statute they have exercised that authority. As for punishing Cheney, I’m all for it. He failed the statute. But that doesn’t help get rid of the ineligible one.]

Barnett VS Obama
[The SupremeCourt has “consistently stressed that a plaintiff’s Complaint must
establish that he has a ‘personal stake’ in the alleged dispute and
that the alleged injury suffered is particularized as to him.”
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 819, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849
(1997) (emphasis supplied). In short, the injuries alleged by
Plaintiff Freese and the other military Plaintiffs herein, are not
particularized as to them, but, rather, would be shared by all
members of the military and is an inadequate basis on which to
establish standing.]

[Captain Connie Rhodes was represented by Taitz as early as April of this year in an attempt to question the legality of the President through letters send to the DOD and various authorities in Georgia. The DOD, through the Joint Chiefs of Staff office informed plaintiffs counsel that currently no remedy exists for such challenges of lawfulness of orders]

Larry Walker Jr. summed it up for me. I’d also love to know what “facts” FactCheck checked that enabled them to forcefully state that Obama neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor swore an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

How the eff do they know?

I submit that they do not know. To paraphrase Sarah Palin, they’re just makin’ things up.

Or else they took Vietor’s, Axelrod’s, or some other Obama minion’s word for it.

I’m not a betting person–although I hear that some of us are :)–but I would bet anyone that FactCheck did not check any records that prove their assertions.

btw, is my memory totally fried or did FactCheck make another change to that story? It seems to me that when I first read the story, linked from TRSOL blog, the FactCheck article ended with the author making a snarky comment about them being tired of the subject of Obama’s BC, so he referred everyone to that mystery lawyer’s blog. Does anyone else remember that? Maybe I only imagined it.

Looking at this screenshot of the site factcheck.org gives me an instant impression…that impression is not one of objective humility.

After you clearly proving they were wrong on Kenya in their previous write ups, they title their new page- “Obama and Kenya, Again.”
(as if they were forced to rehash something well explained over and over to a child)

Next you are led to believe that only the doubters are so stupid that they do not know Hawaii is a state. But the 10% figure is drawn from one poll and does not identify which groups disbelieved or were not sure Hawaii was a state. Does this poll make this a fact? Which group is really less likely to know?

The link for the “as attested to repeatedly by state officials” link shows the absurd statement made by the health director of Hawaii where she claims to have seen original records that verify he was born in Hawaii and he is a natural born citizen!

This is one “official” that made similar public statements on at least two occasions. Hardly evidence of a fact.

Within the first few sentences it is clear that the facts are little more than a compiling of opinions, the very thing they accuse eligibility doubters of going by.

But the very first sentence tells you all you need to know…they are “combating the claims of those that deny that Barack Obama is eligible…”

Factcheck is a name that sounds like they should be… checking facts…not combating them.

I read tons of facts here, as well as opinions, and the most prevalent fact of all is that:
We just do not know much about Barack Obama , because, well, we just don’t know the relevant facts…btw…neither it seems, does factcheck!

[Ed. Well said, Dave. They are not checking facts, they are combating them in a very partisan manner. At least this blog has thoroughly exposed them for such behavior and we can stop people form citing them as some kind of independent fantasy.]

FactCheck.org: “In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen.”

CORRECTION: The Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certification, if they had released the birth certificate, there wouldn’t be all of the mystery, and a Natural Born Citizen would be President.

FactCheck.org: “And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is “fake.” ”

CORRECTION for author Jerome Corsi: The birth “certification” displayed by FactCheck.org appears to be a “genuine” certification, but it is not the “certificate” which will prove Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. (Note: Later on the page Corsi is quoted in a transcribed interview, clarifying his remarks.)

FactCheck.org: “We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.”

CORRECTION: FactCheck.org staffers have not seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate, but they have only seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certification, containing data transcribed from the original certificate.

NOTE: Since the Obama campaign, released the digitally scanned image of his birth certification, containing data transcribed from the original certificate, this proves the existence, of the original record under the control of the state government of Hawaii, making it possible for release of certified copies of the original record. By placing a document into the public domain, the related origination documents, become public property.

FactCheck.org: “Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.”

NOTE: Confirmation a document exists, now the legal battle to gain access.

FactCheck.org: “Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.”

CORRECTION: Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certification, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago, but it is not the original birth certificate we need to display on FactCheck.org. Mr. Obama, may we please see, touch, examine and photograph your original birth certificate?

FactCheck.org: “We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.”

CORRECTION: Since we have yet to see and examine the original certificate, sadly we cannot assure readers that the certificate exists or that it bears a raised seal, or that it’s stamped on the back. Mr. Obama, will you please release your original birth certificate?

Let’s for a moment think that the court fully agrees that Obama has in fact usurped the Office of the President. So what next? Does the U. S. Marshall waltz into the Oval Office and arrest him along with all of the others that are implicated in a coverup?